got windmills?

Sunday, February 15, 2015

RE: My piece
the other day about the comparisons between statements made by the
con man played by Dan Aykroyd on SNL and those of Ag Dept. head Scott
Enright in testimony at the buffer zone public hearing at the
legislature Thursday.

At the hearing Enright cited that infamous half-assed DOH "study"
which tried to say that the amounts of especially toxic Restricted
Use Pesticides found in stream bed sediment and other places downwind
of the chemical companies open-air pesticide experiments, were safe.
The study actually said that the levels were "within acceptable
limits" to which someone on Facebook commented that "there
are no acceptable amounts of pesticides."

I felt compelled to answer that that's not strictly true, saying:

"Well maybe, although if there were truly one molecule in an
ocean of water I wouldn't obsess over it. The problem is that when
you find any amounts- even a molecule- in stream sediment as the
DOH's so-called "study" did, it is an indicator of there
having been massive amounts nearby- enough so that there a presence
left where ongoing diffusion has been and is taking place.

Even if you accept that there is an amount that is "acceptable"
in a glass of drinking water (usually expressed in "X"
parts per million or even billion) it is bad science to presume that
that amount is applicable to finding remnant amounts in a nearby
stream bed.

In other words if you drink a glass of straight undiluted poison
you'll die on the spot. But if you take one drop of that concentrated
poison and dilute it in a million gallons of clean water- and keep
putting one drop of the new solution in another million gallons of
clean water a few times- eventually the resultant mixture would
probably be pretty much innocuous... just like having a stream
running continuously over the bed.

But that doesn't mean that somewhere, right nearby in that
"original source" glass of straight poison that promulgated
the eventually "innocuous" solution, there isn't some
really toxic stuff.

Friday, February 13, 2015

Despite the seriousness of the subject of Thursday's State Senate
hearing on
establishing buffer zones for the use of Restricted Use Pesticides
(RUP), the almost comic routine by international chemical cartel
mouthpieces and second banana Scott Enright, the head of the
Department of Agriculture, had many guffawing at the benign "nothing
to see here- go back to your pesticide-laden homes" portrayal of
some of the most toxic substances on the face of the earth.

It was reminiscent of the classic Dan Aykroyd "Bag
o' Glass" Saturday Night Live sketch from the 70's where
Aykroyd plays Erwin Mainway, President of Mainway Toys.

Using many of the same ploys that poison-purveyors like Syngenta,
Dow and of course Monsanto use to get convince us we're just a bunch
of hysterical nut cases, Aykroyd does his con-man best to try to
convince "Consumer Probe" host Candice Bergen that what she
calls his "so-called harmless playthings"- playthings like
Pretty Peggy Ear Piercing Set, Mr. Skin Grafter,
General Tron's Secret Police Confession KitDoggie Dentist
and Teddy Bear Chainsaw- are nothing to worry about.

And of the Bag of Glass- a big plastic bag full of, yes, shards
of broken glass- Mainway scoffs at the dangers like Enright et. al.
defending the use of deadly chemicals adjacent to schools, hospitals,
homes in towns like Waimea on Kaua`i.

Ask yourself if this type of folderol sound familiar? As Aykroyd
tells Curtain:

"Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up,
you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street,
garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're
just packaging what the kids want! I mean, it's a creative toy, you
know? If you hold this up, you know, you see colors, every color of
the rainbow! I mean, it teaches him about light refraction, you know?
Prisms, and that stuff! You know what I mean?"

Just like RUPs- it's all right there on the label. Everything is
safe as long as it's on the label.

There's also action figure Johnny Switchblade Adventure Punk
which Aykroyd dismisses by saying "So Barbie takes a knife or
Ken gets cut every once in a while. I mean there's no harm in it as
far as I can see," later demonstrating the dangers choking on a
runaway Nerf Ball.

Finally when Bergen presents him with Alphabet Blocks as an
example of a safe toy Aykroyd screams "C'mon, this is harmless?
Alright, okay, you call this harmless? [holds block in hand] I mean..
[plays with block and fakes injury] Aagghh!! I got a splinter in
here, look at that! This is wood! This is unsanded wood, it's rough!"

Kind of reminds one of industry PR flacks who, with a straight
face, try to convince legislators that the REAL problem isn't the
literally tons of RUPs blowing all over town but rather the home
gardener who uses a few tablespoons of non-RUP Round-up a couple of
times a year.

Just like kids want those toys we're told people want pesticides-
even in the DNA of their corn, soy beans and glow-in-the-dark
goldfish. And hey- what's a few perfectly innocuous pesticides among
play-friends?

Just like Mr. Mainway dismisses the dangers of his products, what
does it matter if people's homes are coated with neuro-toxins or if
they get a giant whiff of them when the winds suddenly pick up. As
long as we don't have brown spots on our papayas who cares what
happens to a few brown people. We're too busy feeding the world to
worry about that.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Ironic isn't nearly a strong enough term for how corporate pundits
use solemn tones in tearful defense of "free speech" when
condemning the assassination of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, all
while actually censoring their work by refusing to re-publish the
actual images (much less with translations).

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi approached that kind of critique
yesterday after he delved into a tangential comparison with the AP's
archiving of an image of Andres
Serrano's "Piss Christ," which Matt
describes as "a
set piece of a crucifix submerged in the artist's own urine, caused
Serrano to receive death threats back in the day."

But
unusually for Taibbi he approaches but missed the mark in his tome.

Here's
the Associated Press' lame excuse for condemning the gun-assisted
censorship out of one side of their mouths while essentially
censoring the cartoons out of the other:

"We’ve
taken the view that we don’t want to publish hate speech or
spectacles that offend, provoke or intimidate, or anything that
desecrates religious symbols or angers people along religious or
ethnic lines...We don’t feel that’s useful."

What
a pile of horsesh*t.

The
reality is that "without fear or favor"- at least in the
case of the former- is anything but in play here. It's actually a
matter of a lack of any semblance of the courage that presenting the
background necessary to understand the "news" would entail.
After all, isn't "in depth reporting" what they all claim
they strive to do?

Now
no one is saying that Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer need to put
their lives on the line and surround themselves with armed bodyguards
in order to protect free speech. Fear, if not outright cowardice, is
a perfectly acceptable excuse here. But don't give us some
gobbledygook about propriety as you present the nightly infotaining
celebrity blood-letting which you laughingly call the news.

If
The NY times- which issued a similar convoluted "explanation"
today- is scared to reproduce these cartoons and inform people as to
what exactly these raving religious lunatics had their panties in a
bunch over, just say so. But don't hide behind some sort of
moralistic doubletalk all the while claiming to stand in solidarity
with the people who really have the courage to satirize those who
so richly deserve it.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

We were nothing if not assimilationist Jews. After all, as my
mother's brother Uncle Jerry was keen to point out, after ridding
himself of the distinctly Hebraic "Paschkes" surname in
favor of the blander American-cheese "Parks" moniker upon
immigration, my father proceeded to name us kids Andrew and Kathryn-
an apostle and a Russian Czarina.

So Christmas trees and stockings hung on the bureau with care were
de rigueur yearly fare. Uncle Jerry would come down from the Bronx
and he and my mother would "sneak" a fresh ham with the
admonishment "don't tell Grandma."

When Grandma did visit during the Yule season she would stick her
head into the living room, look at the tree and mutter streams of "oy
gevalt" and "a shonda, a shonda- DAT'S vhat it is"
under her breath (but at the same time loud enough so everyone in the
next apartment could hear it) throughout the day. Every Christmas
morning after the wrapping paper covered the floor Uncle Jerry would
crack that it "looks like Santa Claus threw up in here."

I was apparently a born investigative reporter because at the age
of three my source (my best friend Barry's four-year-old brother)
had informed me as to the "Santa Scam." So I decided that
this year I was going to catch my parents in the act of posing as Mr
Claus, sneaking into my bedroom and filling my stocking with all
manner of American consumer crap- crap without which I couldn't live.

Being the original "toothpicks under my eyes" kid I
thought staying up and staking out the stockings would be a breeze. I
wasn't sure whether I was going to jump out from under the covers and
yell "Gotcha" because I apparently was also clever enough
to know that if I blew their cover, next year all said crap might not
"magically" appear.

Finally it was 1 a.m. and I KNEW I had remained vigilant. Yet
miraculously it was FULL. The thought that I'd actually fallen asleep
was anathema to my budding Sherlockian persona but while I wasn't
stupid enough to think a fat man in a red suit had actually stopped
by my and every other kid's home, there was, for the next couple of
years, always that nagging sort of "but what if"
agnosticism.

So when it was my daughter Jessica's turn we had the tree, the
presents, the stocking and the whole schmear. Same with my grandson
Tony. Why not- why scar them with being the only kid that didn't get
to have a tree in the house with all the accouterments?

Flash forward to December 2000. My parents- at this point my dad
and step mother- are permanently ensconced in Florida where, I
believe by law, all old New York Jews must go upon retirement. Many
had escaped the Nazi concentration camps only to find themselves in
pre-fabricated rows of alphanumerically-delineated barracks,
surrounded by guard shacks and barbed wire fences. Go figure.

And, my step mother is dying because she "didn't want to
bother anybody" about the colon cancer that had been growing in
her belly for who-knows-how-long.

So there we all are: me, Jessica, Tony. my sister Kathy and my dad
and trying to give Tony, who was four, Christmas in the Heart of
Jewville- Century Village in W. Palm Beach.

My step-mother Sylvia was pretty much comatose 23 hours a day but
her lucid moments consisted of doing a reprise of my Grandma- opening
an eye, looking around at where Santa had upchucked, mumbling "oy
gevalt" before dropping back into unconsciousness.

Now Florida has quite the Home Hospice operation where they come
into your home and help with, as the end nears, whatever level of
palliative care the, shall we say "pre-deceased" requires.
By Christmas eve 250-plus pound Sylvia's had deteriorate to the point
where ambulatory bathroom trips were out of the question. So of
course we let hospice know that we required the promised "next
level of care."

Now of course the Hospice employees were not the little old Jews
of Century Village but were the local Floridian gentiles- for the
most part black women. And somehow we hadn't gotten the message that
it was Christmas and no one was going to show up.

And when I asked around, all the old Century Village Jews could
say was "Vell, vhadda ya expect- it's 'The Gentiles' Big Day.'"

That night this little couplet wrote itself:

'Twas the Night before Christmas and all through the joy
Not a gentile was working not even a shabbos goy.
The Jews were all snuggled in their self-made camps
Ordering Chinese food and lighting eight lamps....

Friday, December 5, 2014

(PNN) In a move by new Chair Mel Rapozo that removes the rights of
councilmember to introduce legislation, move bills out of committee
to a final vote by the full council, initiate workshops and even cuts
the amount of time allotted for them to speak on measures on the
agenda by half, the new Kaua`i County Council majority rammed through
wholesale changes to longstanding rules at Monday's usually inaugural
meeting of the Kaua`i County Council.

The rights of the public were also severely curtailed by cutting
the mandatory length for public testimony in half, removing the
right to petition the council, severely restricting exchanges between
councilmembers and testifiers and forcing the public to one again
wait for hours to testify.

The County Charter requires adoption of the rules at the usually
pro-forma first meeting which turned into a protracted, almost four
hour long losing battle to protect the rights of councilmembers and
the public after Rapozo attempted to sneak new
rules past due consideration by the council by circulating them
unformatted, without using the standard "Ramseyer" format
that shows changes to legislation. That way a quick glance made those
reading them think there were no changes at all.

A PNN
article on Saturday which detailed a small handful of the
proposed changes apparently alarmed Councilmember Gary Hooser who
then "shared" the article on Facebook. That spurred
an email from Rapozo sent only to those who had contacted him after
seeing the article, attempting unsuccessfully to play down and in
fact misrepresent the changes. That email itself was followed by a
detailed point-by-point Facebook post refuting Rapozo's email from
Hooser who was outraged over the not just the rules themselves but
the attempt to dupe the council into adopting changes.

Among the changes is one previously unreported provision that
would allow committees and their chairs to prevent the full council
from taking a final vote on a bill or resolution by holding the bill
in committee permanently, thus killing it.

While giving chairs this kind of power is common at the federal
and state level it is rarely part of the rules for local
jurisdictions. Kaua`i is the first county in Hawai`i to pass a rule
like this, although Hawai`i Island briefly considered
and quickly rejected a similar measure this week after their
chair attempted a similar secret maneuver.

According to Roberts Rules of Order which governs parliamentary
procedure, only the full body can determine the ultimate fate of any
measure with a majority or more (depending on the type of measure) of
the full body carrying the outcome. But under the Rule-a-la-Rapozo a
"receipt for the record" or in fact any vote other than
approval by a five-voting-member committee of the seven member
council would cause the measure to remain in committee until the
chair allows it to come up again- conceivably not at all. That would
allow three votes- or even less depending on how many are in
attendance for the vote- to essentially kill a bill or resolution.

The new rules also:

-Cut the time the public is given by law to testify on an agenda
item from a total of six to three minutes. It would leave granting a
second three minutes to the discretion of the chair, replacing the
old four additional minutes under the chair's purview. It's
interesting to note that when the matter came up for discussion
Councilmember Kipukai Kuali`i showed how even he- a member of the new
majority who was the most vocal about how it was "disrespectful"
to challenge the new rules- insisted this was not true, personally
attacking Hooser over his contention that it was. It took an
insistence from Hooser that the record reflect the truth for Kuali`i-
obviously worried enough about how his performance would look to the
electorate to later apologize and claim he was not attacking Hooser
personally- to acknowledge his error demonstrating definitively that
he hadn't understood or possibly even read one of the most glaring
changes. The "total of six minutes" rule had been in effect
on Kaua`i for decades;

-Removed the right of councilmember to have proposed legislation-
or any matter- placed on the council agenda within 120 days of
submittal. This provision was added a couple of years back after
Rapozo's stated "mentor," former Chair Kaipo Asing, abused
the requirement requiring the council chair to "initial"
matters in order for them to appear on the agenda. to block
legislation he disfavored from ever appearing on the agenda;

-Eliminate the right of members to hold "workshops"
unless the matter is on the council agenda. Workshops are used to
gather facts, input from experts. members of the administration and
the community to contribute to the preparation of legislation without
violating the state Sunshine Law which requires six-day notice and
public testimony whenever a majority of the council gathers to deal
with actual or projected council business;

-Cut from 10 to five minutes the time councilmembers may speak on
an agenda item without permission from the chair;

-Eliminated the right of citizens to petition the council to
consider legislation;

-Eliminated a recent rule change that had allowed members of the
public to testify on any single agenda item for three minutes at the
very beginning of a meeting rather than having to sit around all day-
sometimes into the night- in order to testify, thus forcing them to,
once again, take a full day off to speak their mind rather than just
an hour or so at 9 a.m.

Rapozo claimed many of the substantive changes were merely
"housekeeping" measures and that all were done with intent
of "expediency (and) efficiency" and as "cost saving"
measures, even suggesting much of the council's proceeding-
apparently including public and council input- were "a waste of
time (and) money" presenting an unsubstantiated a figure of
$250 an hour to record, caption and web-cast meetings.

For the record, at one point during the meeting Rapozo personally
chided PNN Publisher, Editor and Chief Correspondent Andy Parx by
name over what he thought he had read in PNN's first (Saturday 11/29)
article on the rules. Rapozo mockingly claimed that Parx wrote that
a rule regarding "intemperate" or "abusive"
language was new. However a critical-reading of the paragraph shows
that the reference to "new" was made regarding the section
on "Public Testimony" in which the passage is contained,
not the passage itself. PNN welcomes a retraction and apology from
Rapozo considering how adverse he is to litigation.

The meeting began with a... ah screw this "news" format-
the rest calls for a lot less "just the facts ma’am" and
a lot more Rabid Reporter bombast.

The power grab by "King Louis-Mel "I am the County"
XIV, The "Blotting out the Sun(shine) King" started with a
"hurry up and just pass the damn rules" push during the
usually pre-fake-swearing-in snooze-fest where the gaggle of
governance takes the actual oath of office while the audience swears
a different kind of under-their-breath-oath. That is usually
punctuated by selection of the new chair, vice chair, clerk and
deputy and finally pretty much the same old rules as the last term
are adopted. At least that's been the case for the at least the last
25-plus years with any substantive rule changes taking place at
regular meetings throughout the term.

As the clocked ticked down to the official unofficial hour
assigned to re-perform the swearing-in ceremonially in the auditorium
next door approached, the new council majority became panicked when
it became apparent that the minority were not happy about the
elimination of their and the public's rights as Councilmember JoAnn
Yukimura announced she had prepared nine amendments for the most
egregious of the measures to consolidate MachiaMelli's powers.

" Hurry... only a few minutes to go" shouted
dumber-than-the-usual-bear Ross "Boo-Boo" Kagawa to Yogi
the Chair as the clock ticked down. "Let's just pass them and be
done with it" said perennial also ran,
first-time-actually-elected Rapozo-sycophant Kipukai Kuali`i who
seemed outraged-to-tears (if that's possible) that someone would
challenge the rights of Il Douche-A, to run roughshod over the
minority.

It was only when, with mere minutes to go, Yukimura shouted "Move
to amend" and a split-second later Hooser said "second"
that the lap-dancer-fondling
chair thought better of not recognizing the motion at the
almost-didn't-happen delayed-on-line-streaming of the event and they
all proceeded next door for the banal fake-coronation and insipid
oratories from Hizzonah and Ghengis Mel, saving the fireworks for
after the show.

Despite the opposition from the majority- which includes a
long-sought seat for big Kaua`i landowner Grove Farm in the form of
Silver-Spoon-Fed legacy "Missing-D," Arryl Kaneshiro (whose
election, many say, was due to confusion with his father,
long-serving ex-Councilmember, Darryl)- Yukimura charged on with her
amendments with "seconds" from Hooser and loose support
from the other member of the progressive minority Mason Chock who,
with Yukimura, voted for the final rules with only Hooser voting in
opposition.

The worst of the worst of the really offensive "how dare you
challenge The
Prince" rhetoric came from Kuali`i who had gotten the votes
of many progressives in the last election despite his demonstrated
support for the Rapozo, Asing and former councilmember and disgraced
former County Prosecutor Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho.

Iseri and Kuali`i were accused of colluding to throw
Victim-Witness Program monies to Kualii's employer, the YWCA, with
Iseri firing the V-V program employees she had just hired (causing a
wrongful termination EEOC filing which the county settled) in the
prosecutors office... where the program had always been housed since
its inception.

This, say council-watchers guaranteed Kualii's allegiance to the
Iseri/Rapozo alliance during the often bitter battles over Asing's
secretive and paternalistic reign as Chair after having served nobly
for years as the champion of the people in the '80's '90's and early
'00's.

Of the nine amendments only one passed and that with an amendment
to the amendment. But that was was perhaps the most perplexing of all
because the "new" rule was the same as the old rule housed
in that previously mentioned section on Public Hearings.

The council rules certainly did need some actual housekeeping
measures including use of archaic language, anachronistic provisions
and misogynist phrasings. But one of the most glaring had always been
that there was no section regarding the rules for Public Testimony.
Those rules had always been housed under "Public Hearings"
which are required by charter but separate from common public
testimony which is required on every agenda item at every meeting by
the Hawai`i
State Sunshine (open meetings) Law. The Public Hearing rules have
always been treated as applying to both.

Apparently when staff pointed this out to Benito Rapozo he decided
to use the opportunity to make the council train run on time.

The one and only provision that differed was that during actual
Public Hearings, the council has been restricted from asking
questions and having exchanges with those testifying. It had always
been pretty strictly adhered to until recently when, although former
Chair Jay Furfaro would often remind councilmembers of the rule, he
in fact was a little lackadaisical about enforcing it.

Yet here was an amendment from Yukimura apparently seeking to
allow it that during Public Hearings. Now it should be pointed out
that at this juncture that although the council appeared to be
working from, if not a formal Ramseyer copy of the new rules at least
one that indicated changes, still neither has not been made available
to the public.

And as a matter of fact one of those "housekeeping"
rules made it even harder to know what the heck is going on at
meetings by allowing the chair to dispense with the actual verbal
reading of measures. We've tried for years to get them to read actual
amendments when they're introduced- or at least before they are
passed- to no avail.

Parenthetically, as a matter of fact- and we should have
anticipated this- council service is traditionally about as fast as a
molasses-surfing turtle when it comes to getting things posted on the
county web site. Yet the new rules were posted so fast it made our
head do an Exorcist and now the old rules are apparently lost to the
ages.

Not so parenthetically, in some ways we were sympathetic to the
impetus (if not the lack of thought) behind a few of what can only be
called the new"Yukimura Rules."

There isn't one person we know who hasn't rolled their eyes and
even walked out of the room asking those remaining to "let me
know when she's done" after sitting through one of her
interminable "thinking out loud" sessions, usually during
Q&A with someone testifying. The smirks when councilmembers made
veiled references to it during the debate were not as veiled as the
references themselves.

So back to the actual amendment that apparently amended nothing,
Yukimura's amendment seemed to seek to allow exchanges during Pubic
Hearings. That would have been a change from what we remember the old
rules said:

"Public hearings are held to receive testimony from the
public. Councilmembers shall reserve their opinions, questions, and
arguments for the appropriate Council or Committee meeting."

So after much wrangling and Yukimura's pleas that members be able
to "clarify" what those speaking at Public Hearings were
saying, the following was added:

";except that Councilmembers may ask clarifying questions
that enable the Council to better understand the point or position of
the speaker."

And THAT passed unanimously. Big whoop. It's probably the one
change we would have opposed.

The afternoon session session began with His Melness attempting
to run down the list of changes, often mumbling "housekeeping
changes made by staff"- until it turned out they weren't- or
otherwise glossing over or misrepresenting them. Then Yukimura's
amendments rejected at breakneck speed, with the the Greek Chorus
responding to Sophoclapozo's "I wont abuse my power" with
a refrain of "No he won't abuse his power" followed by some
HMS Pinafore-like

What Never?

No Never

What Never?

Well... hardly every

Hardly ever abuses Ruuuules.

Hardly ever sick at Council meetings? We suspect that for the next
two year the response will be "yes always."

Sunday, November 30, 2014

(PNN) Kaua`i County Council Chair-elect Mel Rapozo has written a
response to the yesterday's PNN news article yesterday on his changes
to the proposed Kaua`i County Council rules and Councilmember Gary
Hooser has answered his response basically supporting the veracity of
our news story (posted below).

PNN stands by everything in the article. It is absolutely factual,
unlike many of the prevarications and fabrications from Mr Rapozo
below . Mr Rapozo, in fact makes many misstatements and uses half
truths to disguise his apparent motives.

In answer to part of Mr Rapozo's response (posted below a summery
of Rapozo's response and Hooser's answers), starting off the new term
with rule revisions that consolidate the power of the chair by making
participation by the public and in fact other councilmembers
discretionary on the chair's part in the name of "efficiency"
would not seem to be the way to create "an environment that
fosters fairness"or "a positive start to the new Council
term." But Mr Rapozo has a long history of disingenuity so why
should his first day as chair be any different.

--------

Here is Rapozo's "answers" and Hooser's response to
them:

Mel says:

Reducing public testimony from 6 minutes to 3 minutes. Simply not
true. Here is the new rule: Rule 11(c)(6) Oral testimony shall be
limited to three (3) minutes per person. The Chair shall have the
prerogative to set the order of speakers, speaking for or against any
proposition, and may notify the speaker of the expiration of speaking
time 30 seconds before such expiration. The Chair may allow an
additional three (3) minutes to provide further testimony after all
persons have had an opportunity to speak.

This rule simply allows for a 2nd opportunity to speak after
everyone has spoken. Currently, the public has 6 minutes up front,
forcing people to have to wait to speak. If 10 people are signed up
to speak, the 10th speaker has to wait 54 minutes (or longer
depending on questions from councilmembers) to speak. With the new
rule, the wait time will be much shorter. This rule is for the
benefit of the public, not the Chair or councilmembers.

NOT TRUE: The old (existing) rule states:12E, 4F&G says: F)
Person has 3 minutes to speak G) Person has a second time to speak
for an additional 3 minutes, plus at the Chairs discretion an
additional 4 minutes.

Summary of Rule differences
****Existing old rules- A total of 6 minutes is guaranteed plus a
possible 4 more at Chair discretion ****Proposed new rules - A total
of 3 minutes is guaranteed plus a possible 3 more at the Chairs
discretion

Mel says: Rule 9(c) Placement on Agenda. All bills and resolutions
must be initialed by the Council Chair or, in the Chair’s absence,
the Vice Chair (or other designated chair as stated in Rule No. 3) in
order to be placed on the agenda.

The existing rule was introduced by Chair Furfaro and changed the
practice of the Council after many years. The current rule requires
placement of all bills and resolutions, regardless of its legality,
on the agenda within 120 days. This is not practical as all bills and
resolutions require legal review. If a bill or resolution is deemed
illegal, it should not be placed on the agenda. This rule change is
not intended to "scuttle" proposed legislation, but rather
to ensure that all bills and resolutions are legally sufficient. This
is a standard process for all legislative branches.

THE TRUTH: This Rule means the Council Chair can "scuttle"
ANY proposal whatsoever both legal and illegal. If legality were the
issue the Rule could be amended so that it is no more than 120 days
and must have gone through a legal review. CM's can vote anything
down on first reading if they suspect the item is legally
insufficient but at least there is a public discussion. Often times
"legal sufficiency" is a matter of degree and
interpretation. This Rule leaves 100% of the interpretation up to the
Chair.

Mel says: The removal of the section that allows the public to
testify for 3 minutes on any item on the agenda at the beginning of
the meeting.

What Mr. Parx fails to mention is that the current rule only
allocates 18 minutes for this portion of the meeting. This creates an
issue of unfairness because only 6 members of the public are entitled
to this right. The Council, by a vote of 5 members, can suspend the
rules to address special circumstances as they arise.

THE TRUTH: The old/existing Rule provides a positive way for
people to testify early in the process without having to wait all day
long for a specific agenda item to come up. If needed then this rule
could be expanded to allow as much time as is needed so it remains
fair.

**************************************************************************************************************************************
What also is not addressed is:

The new Rules require Committee Chairs to have approval of the
Chair prior to holding a "Workshop" (primarily educational
in nature), plus the new Rule says workshops can only be held on
items that are on the agenda (also controlled by the Chair).
The old existing Rules include no such restrictions and past
practice is that Committee Chairs may schedule workshops on any topic
within their subject matter jurisdiction without needed the Council
Chairs approval.

Gary Hooser------Here, in full, is Mr Rapozo's response as
sent to many people via email today:

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your input but feel that I
have to clarify some of the misstatements made by Andy Parx. I don't
know the motive but his actions clearly do not encourage a positive
start to the new Council term. I have broken down each of Andy's
concerns below.

Reducing public testimony from 6 minutes to 3 minutes. Simply not
true. Here is the new rule: Rule 11(c)(6) Oral testimony shall be
limited to three (3) minutes per person. The Chair shall have the
prerogative to set the order of speakers, speaking for or against
any proposition, and may notify the speaker of the expiration of
speaking time 30 seconds before such expiration. The Chair may allow
an additional three (3) minutes to provide further testimony after
all persons have had an opportunity to speak.

This rule simply allows for a 2nd opportunity to speak after
everyone has spoken. Currently, the public has 6 minutes up front,
forcing people to have to wait to speak. If 10 people are signed up
to speak, the 10th speaker has to wait 54 minutes (or longer
depending on questions from councilmembers) to speak. With the new
rule, the wait time will be much shorter. This rule is for the
benefit of the public, not the Chair or councilmembers.

Removal of the 120 day provision as it relates to the posting of
bills and resolutions on the agenda. Here is the new rule:

Rule 9(c) Placement on Agenda. All bills and resolutions must be
initialed by the Council Chair or, in the Chair’s absence, the Vice
Chair (or other designated chair as stated in Rule No. 3) in order
to be placed on the agenda.

The existing rule was introduced by Chair Furfaro and changed the
practice of the Council after many years. The current rule requires
placement of all bills and resolutions, regardless of its legality,
on the agenda within 120 days. This is not practical as all bills
and resolutions require legal review. If a bill or resolution is
deemed illegal, it should not be placed on the agenda. This rule
change is not intended to "scuttle" proposed legislation,
but rather to ensure that all bills and resolutions are legally
sufficient. This is a standard process for all legislative branches.

A new section "Public Testimony" was created to give the
Chair the authority to restrict testimony by the public. Here is the
new rule:

Rule 11(c)(9) The Chair may restrict or terminate a speaker’s
right to the floor for intemperate or abusive behavior or language.

This is not a new rule. Currently, rules for public testimony are
housed in Rule 12, Public Hearings. This is a housekeeping measure as
we are now placing the rules for public testimony in a new section,
Rule 11, Testimony. Rules for public testimony should apply to all
testimony, not just limited to public hearings. Again, this is a
housekeeping measure. The new Rule 11(c)(9) is the former Rule
12(e)(4)(J). Intemperate or abusive behavior or language has no place
at any Council or Committee meeting. I'm not sure why Mr. Parx would
have a problem with this.

The removal of the section that allows the public to testify for 3
minutes on any item on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

What Mr. Parx fails to mention is that the current rule only
allocates 18 minutes for this portion of the meeting. This creates
an issue of unfairness because only 6 members of the public are
entitled to this right. The Council, by a vote of 5 members, can
suspend the rules to address special circumstances as they arise. If
the Council, not the Chair, determines that the rules need to be
suspended to address specific and unforeseen circumstances, I have no
problem with that. The public will be given every opportunity to
participate in the process. That is my commitment.

I hope that I have clarified the misstatements by Andy Parx, which
sets out to create unnecessary controversy and divisiveness to the
Council and the community. My goal as the Chair is to bring
efficiency to the Council. To create an environment that fosters
fairness and consistency to the public and councilmembers. I have
served for 10 years on the Council, and believe that these rules will
best serve everyone. There is no attempt to reduce public
participation, in fact quite the opposite. I hope to restore order
and decorum to our meetings which will result in better legislation
and a much more efficient office. Also, these rules will require a
majority vote of the new Council. This is a proposal, and each member
will be able to offer amendments at tomorrow's meeting. I see that
Councilmember Hooser has chosen to share Mr. Parx's post on
Facebook, creating a perception of unfairness on my part. That is his
choice. I am troubled by this as I had hoped to start the new term
with a true sense of teamwork. At the end of the day, the Council
sets the direction for the organization. Not the Chair. And I am
committed to moving forward as a team in the hopes that we can serve
the people in their best interest.

Again, thank you for your email. I am always available to discuss
your concerns and can be reached via email or by cell phone at
645-0243. Havea great day.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

----------------
(Note corrected time and location 12 noon at the War Memorial Convention Hall)Action Alert- Please write to the council at counciltestimony@kauai.gov and ask that the new rules be deferred to the next regular council meeting for full public testimony and council consideration. You may also come Monday 12/1/14 at 12 noon at the War Memorial Convention Hall to ask for a deferral.
----------------

(PNN) A major
rewrite of the Kaua`i County Council rules which would cut
mandatory time for public testimony on agenda items from six minutes
to three and give broad new powers to to limit testimony to new chair
Mel Rapozo is scheduled to be adopted at Monday's mostly "ceremonial"
Inaugural Meeting.

The rules, submitted by Rapozo, would also remove a section that
requires the chair to put bills, resolutions and communications from
councilmembers on the agenda within 120 days of submission, thus
allowing the chair to scuttle proposed legislation. Legislation like
Bill 2491 (Ordinance 960) related to disclosure of pesticides and
GMOs might never have made it onto the agenda under the new rules,
especially with Rapozo, a critic of the bill, as chair.

An entirely newly-created lengthy section on "Public
Testimony" also give the chair the power to "restrict or
terminate a speaker’s right to the floor for intemperate or abusive
behavior or language" giving the chair potentially arbitrary and
capricious powers to stop someone from speaking, as well as placing
many other new restrictions on public testimony.

The new rules also eliminate a recently added section that allows
the public to testify for three minutes on any agenda item that day,
at the beginning of any meeting rather than having to wait until the
item comes up for consideration- many times hours and hours into a
meeting, even stretching into the night on occasion.

Monday's meeting is traditionally mostly ceremonial in nature and,
according to the agenda, all testimony will be restricted three
minutes to be given at the beginning of the meeting, thus violating
current
council rules and thereby, according to the Office of Information
Practices (OIP), the state Sunshine Law which requites rules for
public testimony to be of a standing nature and established well
ahead of being applied.

In a bit of slight of hand the proposed rule changes as published
at the Council's Webcast page, are not in the "Ramseyer"
format that is traditionally used to show changes to documents so
that what is "new" and what is being removed cannot be
determined, making cross-checking for changes tedious if not
impossible.

PNN has also learned that the way leadership of the "new"
council was determined was also done on the sly in an "informal"
meeting that was not even announced much less agendaed. Although an
OIP opinion exists saying these organizational meetings may fall
under a "loophole" in the Sunshine Law, that determination
was based on a year when there was a majority of new council members.
There are five returning members this year.

According to OIP
Opinion 02-11 11/14/02 on "Meetings of Councilmembers Who
Have Not Yet Officially Taken Office to Discuss Selection of
Officers" although the "short answer" to the question
of "(w)hether members of county councils are subject to part I
of chapter 92, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("Sunshine Law"),
prior to officially taking office when they meet to discuss selection
of officers" was "No." the full opinion says that
"(t)he OIP is of the opinion that it is not illegal for a quorum
of newly elected members of a council to meet privately to discuss
selection of officers prior to commencement of their terms of office.
The OIP also believes, however, that a loophole in the Sunshine Law
allows such an assemblage, which would be prohibited after
councilmembers officially take office. Therefore, for the reasons set
forth below, the OIP STRONGLY RECOMMENDS (emphasis in bold in
original) that a quorum of members-elect of a board not assemble
privately prior to officially taking office to discuss selection of
board officers, in keeping with the spirit of the Sunshine Law_ The
OIP also notes that this issue can be brought before the Legislature
for clarification."

The council has always announced and agendaed these meeting even
since the opinion was issued in 2002.

You've no doubt noticed a dearth of postings here and that this blog has seemingly gone to seed.

That's because we've been spreading our fertilizer on Facebook where we are posting all the Kaua`i-based Parx News you can handle.

We'll still be posting the occasional, more "formal," piece here but we've found that everything doesn't need to be 800 words long and have a beginning, middle and end. Sometime a few paragraphs and a link or two is all you need (yes, okay... love too).

So for multiple (usually) daily news and commentary posts, "follow" or send a "friend" request to Andy Parx at FB. Or you can go directly to our page.

We find FB much less of a "writer-reader" format and more of a communication platform that's more conducive to conversation and being able to share information back and forth with others.

Facebook is only what each persons makes it. Some people want to tell their "friends" what they ate for lunch. Others want to share and discuss the issues of the day and make it a tool that connects people for purposes of advocacy and activism. Go figgah.

Are "smart meters" really a health hazard? We look at the actual science, separating the facts from the half-baked conspiracy theories and delusional conjecture. Get a reality check by reading METERING MR. SMARTY PANTS.

Moloa`a Water Theft- A continuing PNN Investigative series

It’s not Chinatown Jake, but it’s close.

About 10 years ago “someone” dammed up Moloa`a stream and re-built the long-defunct and dilapidated Moloa`a Ditch, diverting almost all the water that serves Moloa`a Valley through three tunnels that lead to Ka Loko Ditch.

From there the water flows into a system of underground pipes that serves Jimmy Pflueger’s properties in the Pila`a/Waiakalua/Wailapa area and with the excess dumped into the Ka Loko Reservoir which gave way killing seven people in 2006

PNN Investigative Reports

The Kaua`i Board of Ethics (BOE) is not just the most powerful but arguably the most politically corrupted, self-serving, and interest-conflicted board or commission (B’s and C’s) in the county.

Their BOE’s role in the politically motivated pogrom resulting in the purge of Police Chief KC Lum and Police Commission Chair Mike Ching is well documented in Tony Sommer’s book “KPD Blue” (serialized below).

But in the intervening three years not much has changed and indeed it has only gotten worse with BOE decisions that fly in the face of all ethical standards, all logic and in fact the plain reading of the county charter which prohibits those serving on B’s and C’s from “appearing on behalf of private interests” before their or any county B’s and C’s.

Read how three individuals- Chairs Mark Hubbard and Lei Fuller and Secretary Judith Lenthall- have used their power in a quest to violate ethics laws and how their lawless rulings have resulted in a free pass to corruption for everyone else in the revolving-door of county service and employ.

Click here for all of our continuing coverage of the Kaua`i Board of Ethics

---------

From the archives...

Toxic waste dump "discovered" at KE’s `Ele`ele power plant.

Almost seven years ago, on July 17, 2002, Parx News Net (PNN) published an investigative report exposing an underground toxic waste dump- a 40 foot deep lake of petroleum products laced with heavy metals according to a consultant’s report- underneath what was then Kaua`i Electric’s `Ele`ele power plant.Despite the report, the sale of Kaua`i Eclectic (KE) to the Kaua`i Island Utility Co-op (KIUC) went forward with all liabilities transferred to the co-op members.

The mess and the potential cost of cleanup was not, from all reports at the time, considered in determining the sale price.The report was published in anticipation of the impending sale. Following the report is a reply from the KE environmental consultant followed by our reply to their letter, to which neither they nor KE nor KIUC has ever responded.

KPD detectives transported the women back to KPD headquarters, took one into the watch sergeant’s office and closed the door.

Then they took off her clothes and fondled and photographed her.

Police supervisors looked the other way.

And that was just the beginning….

If you think banana republics, crooked cops, corrupt politicians and unethical government bureaucrats exist only in the Third World, welcome to Kauai: 100 miles west of and 100 years behind the rest of the United States.

KPD BLUE may be the only book about Kauai that contains no pretty pictures.

ANTHONY SOMMER is a veteran of almost four decades as a reporter for major metropolitan daily newspapers and covered Kauai for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.